And a word about what I call “placeism”. The derogation of individuals or groups based solely on where they live. Saw a lot of that in the last election, especially directed at CA and NY.
I’d say that the opposite of “admiration” in this context is “contempt”, “scorn” and/or “pity”, depending on the individual and situation.
It may be absurd to assign “contempt” to a loser in a sports event, because such events are generally supposed to be either fun or professional contexts (and that professional runner who lost could still wipe the floor with you!).
“Contempt” isn’t too far off though, for (say) what many Toronto fans feel towards the Maple Leafs, who haven’t won a Stanley Cup since 1967 …
It all depends on how bad a showing they make. Don’t win in a hard fought race, because someone else is faster? Only the mean of spirit would hold a contestant in “contempt”. Don’t even appear to try, because they are too damn lazy to bother training? Different story.
If socialists become more aware of what they are supposed to know (that the effects of the anthropocene offsets any other crisis), they at some point they will realize that neither will matter.
Because the wealthy are the ultimate rulers of society, and it is in their interest to distract us with racial divisions rather than divisions based on class.
I have never in my life seen anyone of wealth or accomplishment say or do anything to indicate they ‘hate’ the poor. The notion that they do invariably comes from some liberal annoyed or incensed because his or her idea of dealing with the problem is objected to. Thus the objector ‘hates’ the rich. Just like if you oppose abortion or paying for someone else’s birth control it will be claimed you hate women, and if you object to welfare and think it’s counter productive it’s because you hate blacks (this despite the fact more whites get welfare than blacks). Basically in the minds of at least the squeaky wheel type of liberals who are the ones that one hears agitating on whichever subject and attempting to drive social change, any objection to anything liberals want to do is meritless and driven only by hate.
Oh, and then there’s educational bias. I recall reading an interview with Henry Louis Gates in which he speaks of the lack of racial bias that exists in Martha’s Vineyard where he likes to vacation but readily acknowledges the existence of bias on the part of the highly educated toward those in the community who are lesser learned. Are we to attempt to eliminate this type of bias also?
There is simply no way to avoid situations where some people are higher than others in one way or another socially speaking unless the equality sought is artificially produced and forced upon the populace at the point of a gun.
And then what about those who are more attractive than the less attractive? Taller than those who are short. Smarter than those not intellectually gifted? Are we to eliminate them too?
Life is unfair. Learn it, accept it, live with it. Life as it exists in this country is vastly preferable to all concerned than living under a system of forced classlessness, where fear, oppression, privation, forced conformity and no hope of ever improving your lot is the order of the day.
The point is, you were/are making a rhetorical argument that since we praise success, it’s only natural to do the opposite (condemn) the opposite of success (failure).
This is in lieu of any moral argument.
But on scrutiny, it doesn’t really work: it’s just a word game. It’s essentially saying that zero (the lack of something) is the opposite of one, therefore I should feel some negative emotion that I think roughly corresponds to the praise that we think some people who’ve achieved success deserve. It doesn’t work on any level.
(The true opposite of success wouldn’t be failing to achieve success, it would be throwing away something you already have, or possibly trying to prevent someone else from being successful. In these cases condemnation might begin to make more sense. But even then, to be consistent, we’d have to say only some people might deserve that condemnation)
I think it’s a bit more pernicious than that. Like, I’ll admit my gut reaction is to scoff at people who demonstrate “low class values”. People who watch or like the “wrong” things that are too “lowbrow”, or make offcolor jokes (or the wrong types of offcolor jokes or without the appropriate level of winking and nodding etc etc). People who value the “wrong” things". I find it, at a gut level, gauche and boorish when, while a definite class marker, often they’re fine respectable people who just were raised with different interests.
And in poor areas or neighborhood and around homeless people I find myself subconsciously walking the long way or clutching my purse or whatever.
Some of this is by association, some things I associate with people I know support policies and people who want to hurt me or deny me rights, some things might be justifiable from a safety perspective, but it would be wrong to say they’re anything more than associations.
I would argue a ton in favor of “the poor”, I could do it for hours, loudly, and talk about policies that will help poor people, but when it comes down to it, the way I act and judge people is in a way “looking down on poor people”*. And I try to control it, but classism is a very real influence on my outlook and how I judge people on my first impression.
- Or, perhaps more precisely, “people who were raised with a certain set of values and priorities betraying growing up in certain impoverished subcultures.” I have friends who were raised impoverished whose parents were, class-wise, raised a different way and just didn’t have money for a while. Or friends who were kicked out of their homes or got unlucky and became poor for whatever reason. Hence class =/= “poor people” thing, but I’m using it that way to directly respond to your post.
I suspect that has more to do with what you see than reality. From Reagan’s “welfare queens” to Romney’s “47%” to multiple (always Republican) politicians and talking heads referring to the poor working class as “scroungers” and “animals”, a lot of it goes on. And I’ve seen a lot of it from rich individuals of my acquaintance, who are quick to ascribe poverty to “laziness” even as they work to game the system further to their own benefit.
Step out of your bubble occasionally, man.
Yeah, screw them liberals with their lattes and their book learnin’!
I certainly have. Maybe not “hate”. But certainly a level of disdain.
Classism really isn’t about “hating the poor” though. It’s about setting up entrenched institutionalized systems that keep people in various socioeconomic groups permanently separated. Some examples:
-Expensive private elite prep schools and colleges.
-Gated communities
-Elite companies and industries that only hire at certain elite colleges
-Elaborate and convoluted social norms
-Special consideration for “legacies” for acceptance at schools or companies
-Preferential treatment to candidates with esoteric hobbies or activities that typically require a certain level of disposable income and/or leisure time.
Classism is more accepted because on the one hand, we do want to encourage those with extraordinary abilities to achieve extraordinary things. And to do that, as a society, we often offer extraordinary awards. But when it simply becomes a matter of being born to parents who can afford to “prepare” their children by sending them to schools and other institutions with the nicest facilities and greatest reputation, that’s classism.
Perfectly said.
When you succeed bigly that’s hard work plus some element of luck.
When people like you then arrange the world so the vast majority of your children can succeed without having to try, whereas the ordinary shlubs’ kids are grasping at one in a million chances to accomplish the same thing, that’s classism hard at work.